Interlingual Transfer in EFL Vocabulary Learning and Teaching

Chapter in
Issues in Teaching EFL in the Arab World (pp. 159-175),
Muscat: SQU Press, 2012

Abdulmoneim Mahmoud

Interlingual Transfer: A Psycho-cognitive Strategy

Gone are the days when the influence of the first language (L1) in foreign language
(FL) learning was despotically seen as interference of bad linguistic habits hindering the
learning of the new language, (Lado, 1957). Since the advent of the cognitive theory of
learning in the 1970s and the dissemination of the findings of research on learning and
communication strategies in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g. Atkinson, 1987; Kellerman,
1991; Oxford and Crookall, 1989; Poulisse. 1993), transfer from L1 has come to be
viewed as one of the cognitive strategies of learning the FL. It is an additional source of
linguistic knowledge available to the FL learner for hypothesis formation. (see e.g.
Odlin, 1989; Rutherford. 1987). The influence of L1 (i.e. interlingual transfer) is
triggered not only by purely linguistic factors (i.e. similarities and differences between
L1 and FL) but also by other factors such as age, learning experience, the language task
and the perceived distance between L1 and FL, (see Gabrys-Baker, 2006). James
(1998) agrees with Nickel (1992) that interlingual transfer “is enjoying a renewed
acceptance as a crucial component in modern L2 learning theories.”, (James, 1998, p.
181). Thus, interlingual transfer is now viewed as a psycho-cognitive process employed
by the learners in the hope of facilitating the task of learning and communicating in FL.
It is no longer seen as a matter of linguistic similarity or difference as the traditional
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis used to claim, (Wardhaugh, 1970). According to
Dailey-O’Cain and Liebscher (2009, p. 131), “many scholars are now arguing that the
first language can be beneficial as a cognitive toll that aids in second language
learning,” (see also Macaro, 2009; Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain, 2009).

It is axiomatic that interlingual transfer – like intralingual transfer – can lead to error as
well as correct production. Needless to say, correct production in FL due to interlingual
or intralingual transfer (i.e. positive transfer) is not easy to detect. Hence, we rely on
errors, among other things, to inform us about the cognitive strategies that the learners
fall back on when learning and communicating in FL. Evidence for the pervasiveness of
interlingual transfer is indisputable especially in FL learning contexts where the
learners’ exposure to the language is confined to a few hours per week of formal
classroom instruction. As we stated in a previous study (Mahmoud, 2000), interlingual
transfer is a compensatory strategy used to fill in gaps in FL knowledge. Negative
interlingual transfer is manifested in three main types of error: (1) translation (or
‘calquing’ according to Ringbom, 2001), (2) foreignization (i.e. phonological or
morphological modification of an L1 form to sound like a FL form), (3) code

1
mixing/switching. Of the three types, translation is the most frequently used strategy, as
can be seen from written English of the Arab students. Translation errors constitute at
least one third of the total number of errors committed by FL learners, (Mahmoud,
1992). Mahmoud (2005) reviewed 21 studies on error analysis; in 11 of them the
interlingual errors were 50% or more. In only three studies were such errors less than
30%. In view of such sizeable portions of interlingual errors, the present study aims to
quantify, classify and analyze the interlingual vocabulary errors made by Arabic-
speaking learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). It is a part of a more
comprehensive investigation into the vocabulary problems of university students. The
present study focuses on the interlingual errors in the production of EFL vocabulary. In
previous studies we analyzed errors in the production of some EFL multi-word units:
idioms (Mahmoud, 2002), binomials (Mahmoud, 2003), collocations (Mahmoud,
2005). Hence, in this study we focus on single-word units of meaning. As Schmitt and
McCarthy (1997, p.2) say, “a learner’s L1 is one of the most important factors in
learning L2 vocabulary.”

Interlingual Transfer in EFL Vocabulary:

The vocabulary errors were collected from 60 essays written by Arabic-speaking,

second-year, third-semester, male and female university students majoring in EFL. The
essays were written as homework assignments in partial fulfillment of the requirements
of a writing course. The students compiled a list of topics of their own choice at the
beginning of the semester (e.g. intermarriage, polygamy, mobile phones, parking
problems, co-education, globalization). The essays were two and half to three pages in
length. They were photocopied for the purpose of this study. The originals were
assessed for the purpose of the writing course and returned to the students. Two
university EFL teachers, one of whom was a native speaker of English, indicated the
vocabulary errors. Two Arabic-speaking EFL teachers who had experience in error
analysis were asked to indicate the ones that could possibly be due to negative
interlingual transfer. A third Arabic-speaking error-analysis expert was consulted for
confirmation and verification in case of disagreement. Some students were available for
consultation in cases of ambiguity.

A total of 1009 vocabulary errors were detected. The ones which were judged to be due
to negative interlingual transfer amounted to 385 (i.e. 38%). Six errors were classified
as ambiguous and hence ignored. The following are examples of ambiguous errors:

* We are capable to use the internet anywhere.

(grammar: capable of using or vocabulary: able to)

* The waves effected his brain and killed him.

(spelling or vocabulary?)

* Some people abuse academic societies.

(interlingual: ‫ يسئ‬or intralingual: misuse / abuse ?)
2
For the purpose of this study, only the interlingual errors were classified and analyzed.
A repeated error was counted as one. Collocation errors were not included as they were
multi-word units we covered in a previous study, (Mahmoud, 2005). Of the 385 errors,
380 (i.e. 99%) were cases of substitution where a wrong word was used. Such errors are
referred to as ‘diction’, ‘wrong word’ and ‘word choice’ (see, e.g. Pharr and Buscemi,
2009). The few remaining errors were cases of insertion of a word that was not required
(3 errors, 0.8%) and omission of a required one (2 errors, 0.5%), (see Table 1 below):

Table (1)

Types of Interlingual Errors

Type Number %
Substitution 380 98.7
Insertion 3 0.8
Omission 2 0.5
Total 385 100

Examples of insertion and omission:

* Before many years ago we did not think that …

Insertion of ‘Before’ is most probably due to transfer of the two time adverbs (‫ قبل‬and
‫ )مضت‬used in Arabic.

* People receive calls from anonymous ^ who some of them annoy people.

Omission of the noun could be attributed to the adjective ( ‫ )مجهول‬functioning as a noun

in Arabic.

The substitution errors (380) were classified as follows:

Table (2)

Types of Substitution Errors

Type Number %
Wrong word 369 97
Wrong form 7 2
Foreignization 2 0.5
Word coinage 2 0.5

3
 Total 380 100

As we see in Table (2), most of the substitution errors were instances where the students
used incorrect EFL words due to the influence of Arabic. It is not easy to tell whether
the students transferred from modern standard Arabic (MSA) or non-standard Arabic
(NSA), (see also Mahmoud, 2000). However, six out of 363 the word-choice errors
were believed to be due to transfer from NSA. These errors might not have been
committed had the students transferred from MSA.
Examples:

* That is attributable to the light that ascends from phone.

In NSA, the verb (‫ )يطلع‬has two meanings: to go out and to go up. In MSA (‫ =( )يخرج‬to
go out) is used in this context. Transfer from MSA might have led to the use of the
correct verb.

* If she followed Islam rules from the first, she would not ….

In this example, the word ‘first’ is equivalent to the NSA word (‫)أول‬. The correct
English word ‘beginning’ is equivalent to the MSA word (‫)بداية‬.

On the other hand, the error in *Technology has come by considerable changes in
today’s life, is most probably due to transfer from MSA where the verb ( ‫ )جاءت‬is has
come. Transfer from NSA might have led to the use of the verb ‘brought’ because of
(‫)جابت‬. This, of course, does not mean that only six errors were due to transfer from
NSA. As we stated earlier, transfer from both MSA and NSA can lead to the production
of the same EFL word due to the similarity of the two varieties of Arabic.

Some substitution errors (24, i.e. 6%) were judged to be due to confusion within
Arabic; cases where the students failed to differentiate between pairs of formally similar
Arabic words such as (‫ = يجنب‬to safeguard) and (‫ = يتجنب‬to avoid), ( ‫ =خطأ‬mistake) and
(‫ = خطيئة‬sin), (‫ = يكسب‬to gain / win) and (‫ = يكتسب‬to acquire), (‫ = يعرف‬to know) and
(‫ = يتعرف‬to recognize), (‫ = يعامل‬to treat) and (‫ = يتعامل‬to deal with). These are cases of
‘problem transfer’; problems in Arabic were carried over to EFL. The following
examples illustrate this process:

* Intermarriage avoids quarrels .

* We can know the male student when he wears a dishdasha.
* They will not visit people or treat them face to face.
* He sometimes lends money to get the latest telephone.
(‫ = يستلف‬borrow vs ‫ = يسلف‬lend)
* The universities have a united system.
(‫ = متحد‬united vs ‫ = موحد‬unified)
4
* Today technology interferes in all matters of life.
(‫ = تدخل‬enters vs ‫ = تتدخل‬interferes)

Word Form:

Kharma and Hajjaj (1997, p. 37) who analyzed the errors made by Kuwaiti learners of
EFL believe that Arabic does not influence the formation of English words. They state
that “the English system itself is the source of any mistakes committed in this area.”
However, the three Arabic-speaking error-analysts who participated in this study
attributed seven errors of word form to interlingual transfer (2% of the interlingual
errors). Consultation with the students who committed the errors confirmed the
analysts’ belief.

Examples:

* There are economic and healthy problems.

* The mobile phones cause a lot of healthy and social problems.

In Arabic the adjective (‫ )صحي‬is equivalent to both modifiers ‘health’ and ‘healthy’ in
English, (‫ = مشاكل صحية‬health problems). One of the common word-formation errors
was the use of ‘economic’ instead of ‘economical’ and vice versa. As Kharma and
Hajjaj (ibid) say, this could be due to the English derivational system itself. However,
when we asked the students to explain their errors, they immediately referred to the
Arabic adjective (‫)إقتصادي‬. They thought the two English words were interchangeable
since they had one equivalent in Arabic. Needless to say, classification of errors into
interlingual and intralingual is a complicated process. An EFL learner may commit an
error due to transfer from L1 while another learner speaking the same L1 may commit
the same error for an intralingual reason.

* I think there is an economical problem only for those who use….

* Breaking all types of limits: age, sex, economical situation, …
* Consider the economical aspect of co-education
* The third reason is that the student becomes more economic.

Similar interlingual explanations were given in the following cases:

* It reduces the time and helps people in their works. (‫)أعمال‬

* The Arabians who want to deal with the Westerners … (‫)العرب‬
* In the Arabic world, English is commonly used. (‫)العربى‬
* Some students in the Arabic countries are influenced by English. (‫)العربية‬

Word Coinage and Foreignization

Two cases of word coinage were believed to be due to interlingual transfer:

5
* Cars that have no permission in the parkings belong to students.

The Arabic equivalent of ‘parking lots’ is one plural noun (‫)مواقف‬, hence the student
coined a plural noun ‘parkings’.

* They have quarrels with the building owner.

Here, the student translated the Arabic equivalent of ‘land lord’ (‫)مالك البناية‬.

In two cases the students resorted to the strategy of foreignization. They transliterated
Arabic words; they wrote Arabic words using English letters either because there was a
linguistic gap (i.e. they did not know the required EFL word or thought it was the same
word in EFL) as in * He has sukkari (= diabetes) or because they believed that the
Arabic word was culture-specific as in * Music in public is haram in Islam (=
forbidden).

Word Choice

Apart from the types of errors discussed above (word formation, word coinage,
foreignization, and confusion with Arabic), a large number of interlingual errors of
word choice were detected (333 errors, 92% of the total number of substitution errors).
These were cases where Arabic uses one word for two or more English words having
different meanings as we saw earlier in the examples of transfer from NSA. Students
believe that ‘sound’ and ‘voice’ were interchangeable since there is one word for both
of them in Arabic (‫)صوت‬. Because the Arabic verb (‫ )يختصر‬can be used in cases where
English uses ‘abbreviate’ and ‘abridge’, the students wrote:

* Mobile phones shorten the distances and abbreviate the time.

* The mobile abridges distance and time.

The errors in this category could be due to transfer from MSA or NSA since the two
varieties of Arabic are similar as we said earlier. Here are some more examples of this
common type of error:

* Our society is an eastern society. (‫ = شرقي‬eastern & oriental)

* She is one meter and 64 centimeters long. (‫ = طويل‬long & tall)
* In the end, he fired his father. (‫ = طرد‬drove away & sacked)
* It [The mobile] is dangerous if small babies use it. (‫ = أطفال‬children & babies)
* The mobile phone can influence the ears. (‫ = يؤثر‬affect & influence)
* They have a system of revelation of radars. (‫ = يكشف‬reveal & discover)
* They use mobiles to cheat and destroy houses. (‫ = بيوت‬houses & homes)
* They use it to play on people’s special lives. (‫ = خاصة‬special & private)
* We should use mobile phones in a temperate way. (‫ = معتدلة‬temperate & moderate)
* The mobile phones can perform other jobs. (‫ = وظائف‬jobs & functions)
* The mobile phone contracts the distance between countries. (‫ = يقلص‬shorten & contract)
6
* It has a recorder for registering sound with tone. (‫ = يسجل‬to record & to register)

Interlingual-strategy-based Instruction

Aebersold and Field (1997, p. 139) believe that teaching a word and learning it “are
different matters and require different strategies in the classroom.” The first part of the
statement is true only in the sense that not everything that is taught is learned and vice
versa. As for the second part – that teaching and learning require different strategies – it
is axiomatic that the effective teaching techniques are those which are based on learning
strategies. Hutchinson and Waters (1987, p. 15) write, “the starting point for all
language teaching should be an understanding of how people learn.” In a similar vein,
Titone (1987, p. 17) says, “the how of language teaching is prescribed, basically, by the
how of language learning.” Thus, one of the pillars of learner-centeredness in language
teaching is to let learning inform our techniques. The language teaching methods and
techniques will be more effective as we learn more about learning strategies. Analyzing
learners’ errors, among other things, helps us to know about the learning process. In this
respect, Erdogan (2005, p. 262) says, “if the mistakes and errors … are analyzed
carefully, the process of language acquisition shall be understood,” (see also Xie and
Jiang, 2007).

This study focuses on interlingual transfer as an important learning and communication

strategy used by Arabic-speaking learners of EFL. The findings of this study show that
reliance on the first language (L1) accounts for 38% of the errors. Hence, the use of L1
in teaching EFL makes for a strategy-based technique. It is a learner-centered technique
in line with the natural hypothesis-formation process, (see also Mahmoud, 1996, 1998,
2000). McMillan and Trunbull (2009, p. 15) say, “current thinking leads towards
acceptance of judicious and theoretically principled L1 use.” The language teacher and
researchers who call for a ban on the use of L1 in teaching a foreign language (FL),
(e.g. Mehta, 2009), seem as if they are adopting the out-dated view of the 1950s and
1960s when L1 was deemed to be a source of harmful habits interfering in the learning
of the FL. This short-sighted view of the role of L1 deprives the learners and teachers of
an effective FL learning and teaching technique. In the concluding chapter of their
edited book, Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain (2009, p. 182) write, “ the volume’s authors
have convincingly demonstrated that an inflexible and extreme position that excludes
the learner’s first language in … second or foreign language classroom is untenable.”
(see also Nagy and Robertson, 2009). Needless to say, negative interlingual transfer
presupposes the existence of positive transfer. Therefore, those who oppose the use of
L1 in FL teaching throw the baby out with the bathwater. The findings of this study
show that EFL students use the cognitive strategy of association in vocabulary learning.
Their interlingual errors were due to the association of EFL words with Arabic words.
Accordingly, teachers can make use of this natural process in vocabulary instruction.
The teacher’s choice of the words that can be taught by using L1 should be guided by
the findings of error analysis. They can conduct their own analyses or use the analyses
done by others with similar groups of EFL learners in similar contexts. James (1998, p.
181) agrees that the analysis of interlingual errors “can lead to the compilation of
7
compact and practical profiles, not of individual learners’ ILs, but of the shared
characteristics of the ILs of a group of learners, a group having the same L1 or L2.”

The ‘Keyword Method’ is based on L1-L2 association. The learner thinks of an L1

word (i.e. the key word) that sounds like the FL word to be learned, then the meaning of
the L1 word is combined in an image with the FL word, (for more information see e.g.
Nation and Meara, 2002). This method is based on the cognitive view that once there
are two languages in the same mind, they will interact and influence each other, (Cook,
2003). Macaro (2009, p. 37) refers to this interaction and says that two languages “are
not contained in separate conceptual stores and … the mental lexicon is best
represented by an increasing number of connections.” As Leech (1994) said, an
important component of the teachers’ language awareness is their knowledge of the
contrastive relations between the first language and the foreign language, (see also
Andrews, 2007). Arabic-speaking teachers of EFL may refer to both varieties of Arabic
(MSA and NSA) depending on the possible source of transfer. In cases where one
Arabic word is used for two or more English words, a brief contrastive comparison
between the two languages may help draw the students’ attention to the dangers of
indiscriminate cross-linguistic association. If interlingual comparisons are thought to be
as effective as intralingual explanations, the teachers can use the technique that they
think will be more economical in terms of time and effort. They can also clear up
confusion within Arabic (e.g. ‫ = يذكر‬remind vs ‫ = يتذكر‬remember) since it can lead to
error in word choice in English. Errors of foreignization and word coinage clearly
indicate gaps in EFL vocabulary that need to be filled. Thus, error analysis reveals not
only incorrectly learned words but also words that have not been learned yet. The use of
interlingual transfer by EFL learners justifies the use of bilingual techniques of
vocabulary instruction reflected in the compilation of bilingual glossaries in some EFL
textbooks (e.g. Our World Through English, 1997-1998) and most of the commercial
EFL booklets and posters (e.g. Learn English Quickly, 2002). However, some of these
commercial materials are dangerous to the linguistic health of EFL learners because
they exhibit all sorts of errors, (see Mahmoud, 2002b. 2003b).

The presence of L1 in the learners’ minds is a fact of life. They rely on it if FL teachers
like it or not (see e.g. Storch and Aldosari, 2010). Therefore, we had better use it
judiciously as one of the teaching techniques instead of closing our eyes and pretending
that it is not there. In Jiang’s (2004, p. 426) words, “L1 involvement cannot be avoided.
Thus, there is no reason not to use L1 as a means of semantization or as a tool for
checking and validating learners’ understanding of word meaning.” Telling students to
think in the FL is nothing but wishful thinking. Thinking in the FL requires a fairly high
level of proficiency in the language. The more the students become proficient in the FL,
the more they rely on intralingual strategies and think in that language, (see also
Kecskes and Papp, 2003). If L1 is not used at the presentation stage, it can be used at
the review stage - as Jiang (ibid) says – to clear up any confusion in understanding the
meanings of the words taught. The opponents of this bilingual technique believe that it
is at the expense of exposure to the FL. On the contrary, it saves time for the other tasks
and activities to be conducted in the FL. Another advantage of the analysis of the
8
interlingul errors is raise students’ transfer awareness; it shows them when to rely on L1
and when not to. As James (1998, p. 181) says, “there are … occasions where learners
have L1 patterns that could be advantageously transferred to the L2 but they do not
exploit this potential.” Bilingual explanations of errors helps the students see the
distance between L1 and the FL and understand the reasons behind their errors.
According to Jiang (2004, p. 427), “L2 learners can benefit tremendously from a variety
of vocabulary instruction techniques that help draw attention to the semantic differences
between a L2 word and its L1 translation.” Thus, the bilingual technique of teaching
EFL vocabulary is in keeping with the interlingual transfer learning and communication
strategy. What is taught may not be learned for various reasons; one of them is the
mismatch between the learning strategies anf teaching techniques by ignoring the role
of L1.

Conclusion:

This study was motivated by the magnitude of the interlingual errors (38%) n the data
collected for a more comprehensive investigation into the vocabulary problems of
Arabic-speaking EFL learners. Such a percentage is significant in light of the fact that
the students were second-year university English majors who had been studying EFL
for at least 12 years. The vast majority of the errors were cases of substitution where
Arabic uses one word for two or more EFL words with different meanings. The errors
detected included word choice, word form, word coinage, and foreignization. They
could be attributed to transfer from MSA as well as NSA. Some of them were due to
confusion within L1, that is, problems in Arabic were carried over to English. In light
of the learner-centered approach to language teaching, we advocate the use of L1 in
teaching FL vocabulary, a bilingual technique in line with the learners’ natural
hypothesis formation process. The use of L1 should be guided by the analysis of the
interlingual errors. EFL teachers can also make use of the error analyses done by other
EFL teachers with similar groups of learners. Such an error-based use of L1 can,
hopefully, make for an effective learner-centered technique of teaching EFL
vocabulary.

References

Aebersold, J. and Field, M (1997). From Reader to Reading Teacher. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 41, 241-247.

Cook, V. (2003). Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In V. Cook

(Ed.), Effects of the second Language on the First, (pp. 1 – 18). Clevedon: Multilingual

9
Matters.

Dailey-O’Cain, J. and Liebscher, G. (2009). Teacher and student use of the first
Language in foreign language classroom interaction. In M. Turnbull and J. Dailey-
O’Cain (Eds.), First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, (pp.
131 – 144). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Erdogan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. Mersin

Universitesi Journal of the Faculty of Education, 1 (2), 261-270.

Gabrys-Baker, D. (2006). The interaction of language in the lexical search of

multilingual language users. In J. Arabski (Ed.), Cross-linguistic Influences in the
Second Language Lexicon, (pp. 144-156). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1989). English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use. London: Longman.

Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a
second language. The Modern Language Journal, 88 (3), 416-432.

Kecskes, I and Papp, T. (2003). How to demonstrate the conceptual effect of L2 on L1.
In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the Second Language on the First, (pp. 247-265).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kellerman, E. (1991). Compensatory strategies in second language research. In R.

Phillipson et al. (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research, (pp. 142-161).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kharma, N. and Hajjaj, A. (1997). Errors among Arabic Speakers. Beirut: Librairie du
Liban.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Learn English Quickly. (2002). Beirut: Dar Al-Hilal.

Leech, G. (1994). Students’ grammar – teachers’ grammar – learners’ grammar. In M.

Bygate et al (Eds.), Grammar and the Language Teacher, (pp. 17 – 30). Hemel
Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of code-switching in the second language classroom:

Exploring optimal use. In M. Turnbull and J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First Language Use
in Second and Foreign Language Learning, (pp. 35 – 49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

10
Mahmoud, A. (1992). Using error-based interlingual comparisons as a learner-centered
technique of teaching grammar. Ph D Thesis, University of Salford.
Mahmoud, A. (1996). Informal pedagogical grammar. IRAL, 34, 283-291.

Mahmoud, A. (1998). A critical look at interlingual comparisons in grammar

instruction. The Educational Journal, 49, 317-354.

Mahmoud, A. (2000). MSA vs NSA: Where do Arab students transfer from? Language,
Culture and Curriculum, 13, 126-136.

Mahmoud, A. (2002a). Transfer of Idioms by Arab students of EFL. The Internet TESL
Journal (12), available: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Mahmoud-Idioms.html

Mahmoud, A. (2002b). The Dangers of "teach-yourself-English" Books, Mira'at AI-

Jame'ah, 52, 48-52.

Mahmoud, A. (2003a). Arab students’ error in the use of the English binomials. Journal
of Documentation and Research Centre, 15, 9 -13.

Mahmoud, A. (2003b). Killing English with Good Intentions? Mira'at AI-Jame'ah, 53,
56-59.

Mahmoud, A. (2005). Collocation errors made by Arab learners of English. Asian EFL
Journal, August ,5. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com

McMillan, B. and Turnbull, M. (2009). Teachers’ use of the first language in French
immersion: Revisiting a core principle. In M. Turnbull and J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.),
First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, (pp. 15 – 34). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.

Mehta, N. (2009). Vocabulary teaching: Effective methodologies. Internet TESL

Journal, 15 (3), available at http://iteslj.org/techniques/Mehta-vocabulary.html.

Nagy, K. and Robertson, D. (2009). Target language use in English classes in

Hungarian primary schools. In M. Turnbull and J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First
Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, (pp. 66 – 86). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.

Nation, P. and Meara, P. (2002). Vocabulry. In N. Schmidt (Ed.), An Introduction to

Applied Linguistics, (pp. 35-54). New York: Hooder Arnold.

Nickel, G. (1992). Contrastive vs non-contrastive errors. South African Journal of

Linguistics, 10 (4), 229-234.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11
Our World Through English (1997-1998). Sultanate of Oman. Ministry of Education.
Department of ELT Curriculum.

Oxford, R. and Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies. The

Modern Language Journal, 73, 404-419.

Pharr, D. and Buscemi, S. (2009). Writing Today. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Poulisse, N. (1993). A theoretical account of lexical compensation strategies. In R.

Schreuder et al. (Eds.), The Bilingual Lexicon, (pp. 157-189). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Ringbom, H. (1987). The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Rutherford, W. (1987). Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London:

Longman.

Schmitt, N.and McCarthy, M. (1997). Introduction. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy

(Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Storch, N. and Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair
work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14 (4), 355-385.

Titone, R. (1987). Psychological aspects of pedagogical grammar in foreign language

teaching. In J. Lantoff and A. Labarca (Eds.), Research in Second Language Learning.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Turnbull, M. and Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). Concluding reflections: Moving forward.

In M. Turnbull and J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First Language Use in Second and Foreign
Language Learning, (pp. 182 – 186). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH). TESOL Quarterly,

4, 123-130.

Xie, F. and Jiang, X. (2007). Error analysis and the EFL classroom. US-China
Education Review, 4 (4), 10-14.

12